5 ms·

Overvalued IMO. I don't find Zoom to be at all differentiated from the many other video call apps from Meet, Teams, Skype, etc. All the enterprise software comp

Overvalued IMO. I don't find Zoom to be at all differentiated from the many other video call apps from Meet, Teams, Skype, etc. All the enterprise software companies include video meetings in their bundles, why would you pay extra for Zoom?

nikanj 6y ago
Because Zoom _works_. I know of multiple companies that pay for Teams due to Big Corp Politics, but still use Zoom because it actually works.
- nelaboras 6y ago
  jitsi also just works. you might like the servicr, but zoom is definitely overvalued, no question about it.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    Jitsi works reasonably well on PC, but not on mobile. Moreover, Zoom has documentation on how to use it, and Jitsi has none. (They have the stubs for documentation, but the content itself is largely missing. One other thing Zoom has going for it: name recognition. In a crowded market, name recognition is more valuable than the tech.
  - dunefox 6y ago
    Two or so years ago a friend set up Jitsi and RocketChat on his server because 2 friends and I were using Discord for studying for exams and he wanted to try out an open source alternative. It was so bad that we stopped using it immediately and went back to Discord - three people click on a room link, two end up in the same room, one is in an empty room; people kept dropping out every minute; one shared his screen, and while one person could see it, the other couldn't; some people heard others, some didn't; and the installer on Windows was so bugged that one person couldn't even run the desktop version and had to resort to the browser version which had its own problems. Maybe this has improved since but I wouldn't use Shitsi again with Discord as an alternative.
    - trynewideas 6y ago
      > Two or so years ago > Maybe this has improved since Yes.
      - dunefox 6y ago
        Great!
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- 0xy 6y ago
  Google Meet works, and works faster. One URL, click join, bam you're in. Zoom you have to install (and accept that the CCP will steal your IP).
- swiley 6y ago
  Honestly I’ve used a dozen different conference call apps in the past few months and they all _work_. I still don’t get why zoom is popular, on Linux they want me to install a browser extension just to join a call which is unacceptable when we have webrtc already. IMO it’s one of those situations where some software becomes popular for reasons (marketing? Network effects?) and people just use it because it’s there. No one can shop for software and that’s why we need open protocols.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    If you think webrtc is a replacement for zoom, then I don't think you have seen what many people are using zoom for. I am unaware of any webrtc implementation that can handle 100 people on a video call. Much less 1,000 or 5,000. Once you get passed a dozen or so video call users in the same meeting, your options diminish quite a bit. I'm not saying zoom is the only option, but there aren't just tons of easy to use options that do that well.
aphextron 6y ago
>"All the enterprise software companies include video meetings in their bundles, why would you pay extra for Zoom?" Network effect. Zoom adoption has reached critical mass. Why does anyone pay for Slack when IRC is free? It's what everyone else is doing.
- Exmoor 6y ago
  The network effect cuts both ways here. Why pay extra for Zoom when you are already invested in Office 365? The ability to invite external participants to join a call via web browser limits the friction getting people to join calls on unfamiliar systems.
  - vinni2 6y ago
    You can also invite external participants via browser in Teams. Only downside of Teams is that it only shows 4 recent speakers’ video feed.
threatofrain 6y ago
Everyone is still catching up to Zoom's features; many companies still don't have background replacement, or can't take as many simultaneous users.
- ta17711771 6y ago
  Except Jitsi, you mean?
- mindfulplay 6y ago
  This is really fascinating. Continuing along the comparison with airplane stocks: On one hand you have companies that keep flying chairs in the sky filled with people, feeding them every few hours migrating them across continents. On the other hand, I have a company that can replace my crappy apt bedroom with a fake office background. Fascinating that VC funded madness has gotten to this point - prioritizing CTRs, engagement, growth rates and so on.
  - TAForObvReasons 6y ago
    Business travel is a large part of airline profits. If people believe many of those business trips will be replaced with Zoom video conferences on a permanent basis, then you would expect Zoom to see increasing revenues and airlines to see permanently impaired revenue.
  - mewpmewp2 6y ago
    This is pretty much caveman/child logic though. You can make anything sound anything speaking like that ignoring all the complexities involved and actual value provided.
    - BrandoElFollito 6y ago
      As an IT professional, I can know that operating Zoom (out any other similar service) is orders of magnitudes easier than an airline. For one, having catastrophic bugs means to send a "sorry" mail to your users. And maybe fix them. Such bugs on a plane mean death of people. It is similar to suddenly not having wings. And they are back, but half of the cabine is gone. And suddenly no more plane, you are kindly asked to flap your arms.

nikanj 6y ago

Because Zoom _works_. I know of multiple companies that pay for Teams due to Big Corp Politics, but still use Zoom because it actually works.

nelaboras 6y ago
jitsi also just works. you might like the servicr, but zoom is definitely overvalued, no question about it.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Jitsi works reasonably well on PC, but not on mobile. Moreover, Zoom has documentation on how to use it, and Jitsi has none. (They have the stubs for documentation, but the content itself is largely missing. One other thing Zoom has going for it: name recognition. In a crowded market, name recognition is more valuable than the tech.
- dunefox 6y ago
  Two or so years ago a friend set up Jitsi and RocketChat on his server because 2 friends and I were using Discord for studying for exams and he wanted to try out an open source alternative. It was so bad that we stopped using it immediately and went back to Discord - three people click on a room link, two end up in the same room, one is in an empty room; people kept dropping out every minute; one shared his screen, and while one person could see it, the other couldn't; some people heard others, some didn't; and the installer on Windows was so bugged that one person couldn't even run the desktop version and had to resort to the browser version which had its own problems. Maybe this has improved since but I wouldn't use Shitsi again with Discord as an alternative.
  - trynewideas 6y ago
    > Two or so years ago > Maybe this has improved since Yes.
    - dunefox 6y ago
      Great!
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
0xy 6y ago
Google Meet works, and works faster. One URL, click join, bam you're in. Zoom you have to install (and accept that the CCP will steal your IP).
swiley 6y ago
Honestly I’ve used a dozen different conference call apps in the past few months and they all _work_. I still don’t get why zoom is popular, on Linux they want me to install a browser extension just to join a call which is unacceptable when we have webrtc already. IMO it’s one of those situations where some software becomes popular for reasons (marketing? Network effects?) and people just use it because it’s there. No one can shop for software and that’s why we need open protocols.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  If you think webrtc is a replacement for zoom, then I don't think you have seen what many people are using zoom for. I am unaware of any webrtc implementation that can handle 100 people on a video call. Much less 1,000 or 5,000. Once you get passed a dozen or so video call users in the same meeting, your options diminish quite a bit. I'm not saying zoom is the only option, but there aren't just tons of easy to use options that do that well.

aphextron 6y ago

>"All the enterprise software companies include video meetings in their bundles, why would you pay extra for Zoom?" Network effect. Zoom adoption has reached critical mass. Why does anyone pay for Slack when IRC is free? It's what everyone else is doing.

Exmoor 6y ago
The network effect cuts both ways here. Why pay extra for Zoom when you are already invested in Office 365? The ability to invite external participants to join a call via web browser limits the friction getting people to join calls on unfamiliar systems.
- vinni2 6y ago
  You can also invite external participants via browser in Teams. Only downside of Teams is that it only shows 4 recent speakers’ video feed.

threatofrain 6y ago

Everyone is still catching up to Zoom's features; many companies still don't have background replacement, or can't take as many simultaneous users.

ta17711771 6y ago
Except Jitsi, you mean?
mindfulplay 6y ago
This is really fascinating. Continuing along the comparison with airplane stocks: On one hand you have companies that keep flying chairs in the sky filled with people, feeding them every few hours migrating them across continents. On the other hand, I have a company that can replace my crappy apt bedroom with a fake office background. Fascinating that VC funded madness has gotten to this point - prioritizing CTRs, engagement, growth rates and so on.
- TAForObvReasons 6y ago
  Business travel is a large part of airline profits. If people believe many of those business trips will be replaced with Zoom video conferences on a permanent basis, then you would expect Zoom to see increasing revenues and airlines to see permanently impaired revenue.
- mewpmewp2 6y ago
  This is pretty much caveman/child logic though. You can make anything sound anything speaking like that ignoring all the complexities involved and actual value provided.
  - BrandoElFollito 6y ago
    As an IT professional, I can know that operating Zoom (out any other similar service) is orders of magnitudes easier than an airline. For one, having catastrophic bugs means to send a "sorry" mail to your users. And maybe fix them. Such bugs on a plane mean death of people. It is similar to suddenly not having wings. And they are back, but half of the cabine is gone. And suddenly no more plane, you are kindly asked to flap your arms.